• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Trinity prices leaked

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
NTMBK said:
Re: Dual Graphics- Tom's Hardware did some benchmarking, seemed to scale up pretty nicely. http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/a10-5800k-a8-5600k-a6-5400k,3224-4.html I still personally think it's more trouble than its worth (especially when AMD get bored of giving it driver support on newer games).
Click to expand...

I agree. If you are going to add a discrete card, just go with Intel in the first place.

Regarding the A10 desktops, the pre-built systems seem to be where they should have the best position. If I were going to build my own desktop I definitely would not go with an APU.

The problem with the OEM market, is they have to get the price down. For instance, I saw an A10 desktop at costco for 699.00. The problem was that next to it was a Levano i5 for 599.00. Add a HD7750 for around 100.00 to that and you would have very much better CPU and GPU performance for the same price. The A10 is still borderline for 1080p gaming with modern titles. Cant even run Skyrim at 1080p at 30fps. I only see a place for this for casual gaming or older titles. As usual, AMD is a day late and a dollar short. The SB i5s are so cheap now that they are difficult to pass up.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
I agree. If you are going to add a discrete card, just go with Intel in the first place.

Regarding the A10 desktops, the pre-built systems seem to be where they should have the best position. If I were going to build my own desktop I definitely would not go with an APU.

The problem with the OEM market, is they have to get the price down. For instance, I saw an A10 desktop at costco for 699.00. The problem was that next to it was a Levano i5 for 599.00. Add a HD7750 for around 100.00 to that and you would have very much better CPU and GPU performance for the same price. The A10 is still borderline for 1080p gaming with modern titles. Cant even run Skyrim at 1080p at 30fps. I only see a place for this for casual gaming or older titles. As usual, AMD is a day late and a dollar short. The SB i5s are so cheap now that they are difficult to pass up.
Click to expand...

Did the intel OEM box have a PCI E slot?
Did it have a power supply capable of handling the extra wattage?
Does the case accomodate expansion?
Which system had more RAM and at what speed?

The Radeon GPU in that APU is more than capable of playing games enjoyably.

Hd4000, not so much.
 
piesquared said:
Did the intel OEM box have a PCI E slot?
Did it have a power supply capable of handling the extra wattage?
Does the case accomodate expansion?
Which system had more RAM and at what speed?

The Radeon GPU in that APU is more than capable of playing games enjoyably.

Hd4000, not so much.
Click to expand...

I did not specifically see if it has a pcie slot, but the case was large enough for an add in card and one pcie expansion slot is pretty much standard. I specifically mentioned the 7750 because it does not require external power connector.

And I never said the hd4000 was better. The a10 is definitely better than hd4000, especially on the desktop.

If the a10 was a couple of hundred dollars cheaper I could better rationalize the sacrifices in performance relative to a discrete card.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
I agree. If you are going to add a discrete card, just go with Intel in the first place.

Regarding the A10 desktops, the pre-built systems seem to be where they should have the best position. If I were going to build my own desktop I definitely would not go with an APU.

The problem with the OEM market, is they have to get the price down. For instance, I saw an A10 desktop at costco for 699.00. The problem was that next to it was a Levano i5 for 599.00. Add a HD7750 for around 100.00 to that and you would have very much better CPU and GPU performance for the same price. The A10 is still borderline for 1080p gaming with modern titles. Cant even run Skyrim at 1080p at 30fps. I only see a place for this for casual gaming or older titles. As usual, AMD is a day late and a dollar short. The SB i5s are so cheap now that they are difficult to pass up.
Click to expand...

For an all-in-one discrete GPUs just won't cut it. I can see quite a few touch-based all-in-ones being designed with Trinity in mind, particularly as win8 rolls around. The 65W chips are perfect for it.
 
frozentundra123456 said:
I did not specifically see if it has a pcie slot, but the case was large enough for an add in card and one pcie expansion slot is pretty much standard. I specifically mentioned the 7750 because it does not require external power connector.

And I never said the hd4000 was better. The a10 is definitely better than hd4000, especially on the desktop.

If the a10 was a couple of hundred dollars cheaper I could better rationalize the sacrifices in performance relative to a discrete card.
Click to expand...

It may not need an external connector but it still draws power.

I see no sacrifice in performance with an A10; spend more money you get more performance. I could spend the same $100 on an upgrade to the AMD system and get Dual Graphics to walk all over the inetl based one.
The sacrifice would be having to buy another part to be competitive on inetl's system. With the A10 you also get compute acceleration, which more and more ISV's are taking advantage of.
For this market AMD is more than competitive.

IMO
 
Last edited:
frozentundra123456 said:
I did not specifically see if it has a pcie slot, but the case was large enough for an add in card and one pcie expansion slot is pretty much standard. I specifically mentioned the 7750 because it does not require external power connector.

And I never said the hd4000 was better. The a10 is definitely better than hd4000, especially on the desktop.

If the a10 was a couple of hundred dollars cheaper I could better rationalize the sacrifices in performance relative to a discrete card.
Click to expand...

The Intel i5 comes with the HD2500 which can't play many games. So, unless you get an i7 or a special i5 with the HD4000 then the standard desktop will have an HD2500.

And many of the desktop boxes are not configured very well. My brother came home all excited because he had bought a new computer with an Ivy i7 3770 16BG of ram and Nvidia graphics card. He got it for $1000 and after I congratulated him I kinda laughed. Here's a guy who knows a few things about computers as the CEO of a small broadband company and he comes home with an overpriced pile of crap. I took a took a look at the machine and it was so unbalanced it was funny. It was an Asus with a 300W PSU, the fastest consumer i7 (which includes the HD4000), 16GB of ram, 2TB harddrive, and an Nvidia 520 GT video card. Why the hell would they drop in an Nvidia 520 GT? It's the same as the HD4000. He thought he got a decent gaming box. I ripped out the 520 GT and put in a 7750 because that was all the thing could support.

He would have done so much better with an AMD Trinity for what he wanted the computer for (casual gaming) than his i7 and 520 GT. Desktops are confusing for even educated consumers and they are so poorly specced. At least the Trinity could have played Diablo III on High.
 
piesquared said:
It may not need an external connector but it still draws power.

I see no sacrifice in performance with an A10; spend more money you get more performance. I could spend the same $100 on an upgrade to the AMD system and get Dual Graphics to walk all over the inetl based one.
The sacrifice would be having to buy another part to be competitive on inetl's system. With the A10 you also get compute acceleration, which more and more ISV's are taking advantage of.
For this market AMD is more than competitive.

IMO
Click to expand...

You are missing the whole point of my post. There IS a sacrifice in both CPU and GPU performance at the prices I quoted and factoring in the cost of an add in card to the intel system. For the same final cost as the A10 system you could have an i5 and a HD7750, based on the systems I was looking at.

As for compute acceleration, if you added a 7750 to an intel system, could you not do compute acceleration also? In any case, the jury is still out on how useful that will be, especially in the mainstream market where Trinity is positioned.
 
Hubb1e said:
The Intel i5 comes with the HD2500 which can't play many games. So, unless you get an i7 or a special i5 with the HD4000 then the standard desktop will have an HD2500.

And many of the desktop boxes are not configured very well. My brother came home all excited because he had bought a new computer with an Ivy i7 3770 16BG of ram and Nvidia graphics card. He got it for $1000 and after I congratulated him I kinda laughed. Here's a guy who knows a few things about computers as the CEO of a small broadband company and he comes home with an overpriced pile of crap. I took a took a look at the machine and it was so unbalanced it was funny. It was an Asus with a 300W PSU, the fastest consumer i7 (which includes the HD4000), 16GB of ram, 2TB harddrive, and an Nvidia 520 GT video card. Why the hell would they drop in an Nvidia 520 GT? It's the same as the HD4000. He thought he got a decent gaming box. I ripped out the 520 GT and put in a 7750 because that was all the thing could support.

He would have done so much better with an AMD Trinity for what he wanted the computer for (casual gaming) than his i7 and 520 GT. Desktops are confusing for even educated consumers and they are so poorly specced. At least the Trinity could have played Diablo III on High.
Click to expand...

So nv is teaming with inetl to pawn off their uncompetitive cards now.
 
Hubb1e said:
The Intel i5 comes with the HD2500 which can't play many games. So, unless you get an i7 or a special i5 with the HD4000 then the standard desktop will have an HD2500.

And many of the desktop boxes are not configured very well. My brother came home all excited because he had bought a new computer with an Ivy i7 3770 16BG of ram and Nvidia graphics card. He got it for $1000 and after I congratulated him I kinda laughed. Here's a guy who knows a few things about computers as the CEO of a small broadband company and he comes home with an overpriced pile of crap. I took a took a look at the machine and it was so unbalanced it was funny. It was an Asus with a 300W PSU, the fastest consumer i7 (which includes the HD4000), 16GB of ram, 2TB harddrive, and an Nvidia 520 GT video card. Why the hell would they drop in an Nvidia 520 GT? It's the same as the HD4000. He thought he got a decent gaming box. I ripped out the 520 GT and put in a 7750 because that was all the thing could support.

He would have done so much better with an AMD Trinity for what he wanted the computer for (casual gaming) than his i7 and 520 GT. Desktops are confusing for even educated consumers and they are so poorly specced. At least the Trinity could have played Diablo III on High.
Click to expand...

Well, he bought an unbalanced system, that was his mistake. As I said, he could have bought a 600.00 i5 and put in a 7750. Again, it would have outperformed an A10 in both CPU and GPU metrics. Are you saying that manufacturer's should only sell trinity because consumers make poor decisions? Edit: no where was I proposing playing on Intel igp, either HD2500 or HD4000.
 
eternalone said:
How would the 7660d do against my old 4830 Ati?
Click to expand...

A discrete HD4830 would absolutely destroy any of these IGPs. Far more than you'd ever see in the benchmarks. Try playing a youtube clip on a 2nd monitor while gaming on an IGP. These things have not been vetted properly. As far as I know I am still the only one who has ever written a review that points out the very very serious critical problems with IGP multitasking performance... even basic multitasking such as a facebook game plus a youtube clip.
 
IGP in Lano [3870k] typically overclocks by 40-50%. In my case by 41% GPU clock, that is a clock of 847mhz compared to stock of 600.

If Trinity graphics overclock similarly, Trinity should be more than capable of handling many modern titles, including skyrim at 1080p, since I've logged 100 hours @ 1080p with my Lano system...........

As far as maximum performance goes, I think it is still too early to judge Trinity. There simply isn't enough reliable information regarding maximum overclock on the GPU and CPU side of things. I understand that this isn't relevant to the OEM market as a whole, but to us, the enthusiast market, there is too much still to learn before drawing concrete conclusions regarding this product.
 
sm625 said:
Try playing a youtube clip on a 2nd monitor while gaming on an IGP. These things have not been vetted properly. As far as I know I am still the only one who has ever written a review that points out the very very serious critical problems with IGP multitasking performance... even basic multitasking such as a facebook game plus a youtube clip.
Click to expand...

Isn't that how AMD introduced the chip? They had the a6-4455m playing a game while running an HD video on a separate monitor. That won't clog them up, especially not the desktop variants who fair far better than their mobile counterparts.

The desktop Trinity chips are very good, imo. At the above prices a cheapo and capable gaming rig is very feasible. If you ever find yourself needing more graphics just throw in a discrete GPU. If you're going to build a higher end rig you're going Intel anyway 😛
 
It looks okay-ish. Trinity doesn't make much sense for enthusiasts looking for cheap gaming because then you can just buy a Celeron G530 + Radeon HD 6670 DDR5 for the same price and enjoy much, much higher frame rates.
 
LOL_Wut_Axel said:
It looks okay-ish. Trinity doesn't make much sense for enthusiasts looking for cheap gaming because then you can just buy a Celeron G530 + Radeon HD 6670 DDR5 for the same price and enjoy much, much higher frame rates.
Click to expand...

This pretty much says it all.

I would rather have the choice to get an actually GOOD gpu down the road, rather than be locked-in with a platform that stops at both CPU and gpu power at a low level.
 
I don't think people quite understand the point of Fusion; it's lower component cost through integration and decreased total power consumption. Harping on about pairing an Intel CPU and a graphics card doesn't negate either of those goals seeing realization.
 
Centauri said:
I don't think people quite understand the point of Fusion; it's lower component cost through integration and decreased total power consumption. Harping on about pairing an Intel CPU and a graphics card doesn't negate either of those goals seeing realization.
Click to expand...


I agree and its pretty much going off topic and sounding like a broken record. We know you can pair an Intel CPU with any GPU for around the same price but its still not the same tech.
 
sm625 said:
A discrete HD4830 would absolutely destroy any of these IGPs. Far more than you'd ever see in the benchmarks. Try playing a youtube clip on a 2nd monitor while gaming on an IGP. These things have not been vetted properly. As far as I know I am still the only one who has ever written a review that points out the very very serious critical problems with IGP multitasking performance... even basic multitasking such as a facebook game plus a youtube clip.
Click to expand...

Here you're confusing inetl IGP/CPU combo with an APU. Trinity can do that and more.
 
sm625 said:
A discrete HD4830 would absolutely destroy any of these IGPs. Far more than you'd ever see in the benchmarks. Try playing a youtube clip on a 2nd monitor while gaming on an IGP. These things have not been vetted properly. As far as I know I am still the only one who has ever written a review that points out the very very serious critical problems with IGP multitasking performance... even basic multitasking such as a facebook game plus a youtube clip.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=lsmTDb-Mlws

😉
 
Phynaz said:
I didn't say I volume did I? I said budget (you may know it as cheap). Look at AMD's margins. Now look at Intel's margins. Intel's shareholders expect those high margins. Intel isn't going to enter a market where they can't maintain their margins. As IDC said, it's why they got out of the HDTV business.

Number of chips produced is not only way to measure market share. It's probably more important to measure market share in dollars or profit. Not that Intel is low volume. They currently produce about a million chips a day, seven days a week.



Again, I never said what you are saying I did, as I never said anything about either companies market failures.

Do you really want to go there in this thread? Because this isn't the place for it.
Click to expand...
Just started reading this thread and have a late comment.

You do realize, that if Intel has over 80% market share of x86 processors, then by definition, they're in the high volume market segments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top